/sci/ - Science & Math

Why has no one in this thread provided a study where the gap in iq across the races goes away?

Not to mention Ashkenazi intelligence, confirmed time and time again to be 115.

Who is the most intelligent individual ever in his or her's field of study? Not necessarily prolific, but possessing capabilities far above the rest.

Von Neumann has my vote for mathematics, or perhaps Ramunjan. The latter's ability to self-teach is unparalleled, and the former was unbelievably adept at multiple fields.

>>8026783
How did anti semitism ever take root? Jews are the greatest contributiors to mankind.

How come there aren't any more super human Jews like him doing math and physics any more?

>>7998900

John von Neumann had both a 1-in-100-years intellect (IQ >> 200) as well as an eiditic memory better than Kim Peek's, and he had no social abnormalities.

He actually hosted house parties almost every week and told lots of funny jokes.

>>7725306
its insulting to the memory of von neumann that he wasnt included in that, esp over someone like barnett.

von neumann was the polymath of geniuses. if you took all of those geniuses and put them into one brain, you'd have von neumann

>Although von Neumann unfailingly dressed formally, he enjoyed throwing extravagant parties and driving hazardously (frequently while reading a book, and sometimes crashing into a tree or getting arrested).[2] He once reported one of his many car accidents in this way: "I was proceeding down the road. The trees on the right were passing me in orderly fashion at 60 miles per hour. Suddenly one of them stepped in my path."[3] He was a profoundly committed hedonist who liked to eat and drink heavily (it was said that he knew how to count everything except calories), [4] and persistently gaze at the legs of young women (so much so that female secretaries at Los Alamos often covered up the exposed undersides of their desks with cardboard).[5]

Biopic when?

HERE'S JOHNNY!

Why do we teach students to be specialists rather than generalists?

Von Neumann was a generalist. While he made contributions to computer science, mathematics, physics, mathematical statistics, game theory, economics, and computational neuroscience, he never really made a huge impact to any of these fields (other than perhaps computer science). He was a bit of a "jack of all trades". He left his mark on a whole range of disciplines but did so in ways that were not quite so obvious or impactful to society at large.

Einstein, in contrast, was almost a pure specialist. He excelled at physics (with contributions to the field that were far more impactful than von Neumann's), reasonable at mathematics (his friend Grossmann had to teach him the maths to fully appreciate his theory), and poor at almost every other area of science. He made enormous contributions to physics, a little bit to chemistry and mathematics, but next to nil in any other sciences.

So what is so wrong with the von Neumann approach of making small contributions to a range of different fields as opposed to focusing in a single highly specialized field (a la the Einstein approach)?

Unfortunately, it looks like in this case it’s not a real proof of the Riemann Hypothesis, and this post on a Nigerian discussion forum says emphatically he has not solved it. As mentioned in that post, there’s a paper on academia.edu under his name, which is actually a copy of a paper by someone called Werner Raab (retired). Raab’s website – http://www.raab-math.at/ is empty, and has a single broken link to “the truth of the Riemann hypothesis”. Some digging reveals that that URL has never worked. Confusingly, Enoch seems to be gathering papers about the Riemann Hypothesis on academia.edu under his own name.

>>7665788
Being a generalist isn't necessarily a bad thing.

For instance, von Neumann was a generalist. He contributed mostly to computer science, a bit to mathematics, a bit to physics, and a little bit to economics. Towards the end of his life, he was also contributing to neuroscience as well.

In contrast, Einstein was a specialist. He was an amazing physicist but a mediocre mathematician (his friend Grossmann had to teach him maths to fully appreciate his theory). He made enormous contributions to physics (his specialization), left small contributions to mathematics (mostly as a consequence of his physics discoveries), and almost nothing to other disciplines.

There is nothing wrong with taking the von Neumann approach vs. the Einstein approach. With the former, you probably won't end up completely revolutionizing any of the fields you work on but at least you'll have a fairly good understanding of many fields and have the opportunity to leave your mark across a wide range of disciplines.

Just crunch the numbers in your head. Git gud.

>>7629607

In this age, in past ages, in any age, Von Neumann

>>7593236
>>7593850

mfw when people still can't see the light

>>7509742
John Von Neumann

>"He made major contributions to a number of fields,[3] including mathematics (foundations of mathematics, functional analysis, ergodic theory, geometry, topology, and numerical analysis), physics (quantum mechanics, hydrodynamics, and fluid dynamics), economics (game theory), computing (Von Neumann architecture, linear programming, self-replicating machines, stochastic computing), and statistics."

>>7310869

Leibniz.

John von Neumann.

Goethe.

What do you think von Neumann could have accomplished if he focused his efforts on mathematics instead of bothering with meme fields like computer science and economics?

>be 21
>acing exams
>basically B.A. in triple integrals and hahn-banach theorem
>dreams of grad school and making a substantial contribution to mathematics one day
>read about this fucking guy's intellect
>sudden realization that substantial contributions to mathematics are made by some kind of jewish lizard brain and that I don't possess one
>join the army

>tfw you understand

>

Best genius in history?

>INB4 fat

What if Von Neumann was not kill?